Hanagami v. China Airlines, Ltd.

• Decision Date: 26 September 1984
• Docket Number: No. 9265,9265
• Citation: 67 Haw. 357,688 P.2d 1139
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Parties: Gary M. HANAGAMI, individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gary M. Hanagami aka Masayuki Hanagami; et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHINA AIRLINES, LTD., Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, and Unit Rig & Equipment Company, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, and Pan American World Airways, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, and State of Hawaii, Department of Airports, as Roe Governmental Entity I, et al., Defendants.

Page 1139

688 P.2d 1139

67 Haw. 357

Gary M. HANAGAMI, individually, and as Personal

Representative of the Estate of Gary M. Hanagami

aka Masayuki Hanagami; et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHINA AIRLINES, LTD., Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, and Unit Rig & Equipment Company, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,

and

Pan American World Airways, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,

and

State of Hawaii, Department of Airports, as Roe Governmental

Entity I, et al., Defendants.

No. 9265.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

Sept. 26, 1984.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Hawaii's workers' compensation law makes the payment of workers' compensation the employer's exclusive liability for work-related injuries. HRS § 386-5.

2. The exclusive liability provision of Hawaii's workers' compensation law, HRS § 386-5, forecloses a third party tortfeasor's cross-claims to bar an employer from asserting its statutory workers' compensation reimbursement/lien rights pursuant to HRS § 386-8 and forecloses a third party tortfeasors right to reduce, to the extent of any workers' compensation benefits paid, any judgment that might be awarded against a third party tortfeasor.

3. HRS § 386-5 clearly and unequivocally precludes all contribution by a third party against an employer on the theory that the employer was a joint tortfeasor.

4. HRS § 386-5 is a clear expression of legislative intent to absolve the employer of all liability save that imposed by statute.

5. The purpose of workers' compensation legislation is to achieve certainty--certainty that an employee will be compensated for all work injuries regardless of his negligence or fault; and certainty with regard to the amount for which the employer shall be liable. Anything contrary to this purpose, should be a matter for determination by the legislature.

6. A third party tortfeasor is not entitled to have the judgment against him reduced by the amount of compensation paid to the injured employee as workers' compensation benefits, even if he can prove that the concurrent negligence of the employer contributed to the injuries suffered.

7. As a general rule, the construction and legal effect to be given a contract is a question of law.

8. When the terms of a contract are definite and unambiguous there is no room for interpretation. It is only when the language used by the parties leaves some doubt as to the meaning and intention that the courts will apply the rules of construction and interpretation in an effort to ascertain the intention of the parties to the contract.

9. The intent of the parties is a question of fact, and inasmuch as the determination of someone's state of mind usually entails the drawing of factual inferences as to which reasonable men might differ, summary judgment often will be an inappropriate means of resolving an issue of that character.

Burnham H. Greeley, Honolulu (Dan T. Kochi and Jerold T. Matayoshi, Honolulu, with him on the briefs; Carlsmith, Carlsmith, Wichman & Case, Honolulu, of counsel), for defendant-appellant, cross-appellee Pan American World Airways, Inc.

Michael K. Kawahara, Honolulu (Vernon F.L. Char and Steven H. Levinson, Honolulu, with him on the briefs; Damon, Key, Char & Bocken, Honolulu, of counsel), for defendant-appellant, cross-appellee, China Airlines, Ltd.

Howard F. McPheeters, Honolulu (Gary L. Miller, Honolulu, with him on the briefs; Burke, Ashford, Sakai, McPheeters, Bordner & Gilardy, Honolulu, of counsel), for defendant-appellant, cross-appellee Unit Rig & Equipment Co.

Before LUM, C.J., and NAKAMURA, PADGETT, HAYASHI and WAKATSUKI, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The personal representative and survivors (plaintiffs) of Gary M. Hanagami (Hanagami), deceased, the employee of Pan American World Airways, Inc. (Pan Am), brought a wrongful death action against China Airlines, Ltd. (CAL), Unit Rig and Equipment Company (Unit Rig), Pan Am, and the State of Hawaii. CAL and Unit Rig, the alleged third party tortfeasors, cross-claimed against Pan Am claiming that Hanagami's death was caused by Pan Am's negligence, and therefore, Pan Am is barred from recovering any workers' compensation benefits pursuant to the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 386-8 (1976). ¹ Additionally, CAL cross-claimed against Pan Am as follows: (a) that Hanagami's death was caused by Pan Am's negligence, and therefore, any judgment awarded against CAL should be reduced to the extent of any worker's compensation benefits paid; and (b) that CAL is entitled to be indemnified by Pan Am for any loss sustained by CAL due to Pan Am's wilful misconduct or wilful breach of duty pursuant to the Ground Handling Agreement entered into between CAL and Pan Am. Pan Am filed a motion for summary judgment on all of the foregoing cross-claims. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Pan Am on all the cross-claims except as to cross-claim (b) which was denied. CAL, Unit Rig and Pan Am filed an interlocutory appeal of the circuit court's order. We affirm.

I.

Gary M. Hanagami was assigned to Pan Am's aircraft departure push-back and tow operations at the Honolulu International Airport at the time of his death on August 13, 1977. The push-back and tow operation is a procedure by which the departing aircraft is pushed away from the terminal and towed to a position from which the aircraft can taxi on its own power for departure. Pursuant to a Ground Handling Agreement between Pan Am and CAL, Pan Am provided CAL flights with various ground handling services including the push-back and tow service at the Honolulu International Airport with its own equipment and employees. The tug used by Pan Am in its push-back and tow operations was manufactured by Unit Rig.

On August 13, 1977, Hanagami was a member of Pan Am's ground crew assigned to push-back and tow a departing CAL Boeing 747 jetliner. The push-back of the 747 jetliner from the terminal gate was accomplished without incident. However, while the jetliner was being towed forward by the Pan Am ground crew into departure position on the taxiway, Hanagami apparently fell off the rear of the tug and was crushed to death under the nose gear wheels of the towed jetliner.

During the push-back and tow operation, the flight crew in the cockpit of the 747 jetliner could not see the tug on the ground because the tug is located under the aircraft's nose. Consequently, the CAL flight crew was unaware of the accident until after it had occurred. The CAL flight crew first learned of the accident when the Pan Am ground crew, after stopping the tow operation, advised them by radio of the accident.

At the time of the accident, Hanagami was riding on the platform of the tug in violation of a Pan Am safety directive which required members of the ground crew either to ride in the cabs of the tug or to walk alongside the tug. In addition, the Airports Division's regulation of the Department of Transportation prohibited all vehicles in the airport operational area from carrying passengers in excess of their designated seating capacity. Testimony from ground crew personnel indicated that these directives were regularly violated because either the supervisory personnel failed to enforce these rules, or the ground crews simply ignored them.

On March 14, 1978, the Disability Compensation Division of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations held that Hanagami was an employee of Pan Am at the time of the accident and awarded plaintiffs workers' compensation benefits arising out of Hanagami's death. Pan Am, through its insurer, paid workers' compensation to the plaintiffs pursuant to that decision.

II.

Hawaii's workers' compensation law makes the payment of workers' compensation the employer's exclusive liability for work- related injuries. HRS § 386-5 (1976) provides for this exclusive liability as follows:

§ 386-5 Exclusiveness of right to compensation. The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee or his dependents on account of a work injury suffered by him shall exclude all other liability of the employer to the employee, his legal representative, spouse, dependents, next of kin, or anyone else entitled to recover damages from the employer, at common law or otherwise, on account of the injury. (emphasis added.)

CAL and Unit Rig argue that Pacheco v. Hilo Electric Light Co., 55 Haw. 375, 520 P.2d 62 (1974) and Witt v. Jackson, 57 Cal.2d 57, 17 Cal.Rptr. 369, 366 P.2d 641 (1961) should control the outcome of this appeal. We disagree.

They contend that HRS § 386-5 does not foreclose their cross-claims to bar Pan Am from asserting its statutory workers' compensation reimbursement/lien rights pursuant to HRS § 386-8, nor does the statute disallow its right to reduce, to the extent of any workers' compensation benefits paid, any judgment that might be awarded against CAL.

Pan Am argues, on the other hand, that Kamali v. Hawaiian Electric Co., 54 Haw. 153, 504 P.2d 861 (1972), is controlling and therefore, CAL's and Unit Rig's claims are foreclosed. We agree.

A.

In Pacheco, an employee of the State of Hawaii, Stanley Pacheco (Pacheco), was injured when a sign owned and maintained by Hilo Electric Light Company, Ltd. (HELCO) collapsed and fell on his head while he was performing his duties by mowing grass on the shoulder of a state road. Pacheco and his wife (Pachecos) sued HELCO who then joined the State as a third party defendant. Pachecos claims were settled by a compromise settlement. HELCO and the State, however, mutually stipulated to proceed with a trial on the merits of count two. Count two of HELCO's third party complaint claimed that the State's alleged negligence precluded the State from asserting its right to recover the workers' compensation benefits already paid.

The court stated that count two was not based on a theory of contribution, but in substance the count sought a declaration of HELCO's non-liability to the State. The court reasoned that count two should have been dismissed assuming that the rationale of...